Bringing a false advertising claim with unclean hands leads to fee award

Certified Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Avicenna Nutraceutical,
LLC, 2018 WL 5840042, No. 16-cv-02810-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018)
The court awarded roughly $170,000 in fees in this Lanham
Act false advertising case because the plaintiff engaged in the same conduct
(falsely claiming that its product was patented) as its competitor in the
market for collagen products, and still sued the competitor. The court
previously granted summary judgment based on unclean hands; the briefing
“brought to light filings by Certified that seemingly misrepresented the
status” of one patent, leading the court to impose sanctions against Certified,
its CEO, and its counsel.  (Basically,
when Avicenna showed that Certified’s patent hadn’t issued before it advertised
its “patented” status, Certified claimed that it was referring to another
patent, but years before it had been enjoined from exercising that patent.)
Under Octane Fitness the
exceptionality inquiry for fees requires a court to consider “factors,
including frivolousness, motivation, objective reasonableness (both in the
factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular
circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.”
Frivolousness/unreasonability: “prior to filing its lawsuit,
Certified knew or should have known that its unclean hands barred its Lanham
Act claim and that it did not suffer any injury, barring its two state law
claims.”  As for the California state law
claims, Certified could only identify two customers it “lost” as a result of Avicenna’s
statements, and those two customers’ decisions weren’t based on Avicenna’s
false statements but on the customers’ beliefs in Avicenna’s product’s superior
quality and consistency.  Even under more
stringent older standards, there was no reasonable basis for bringing these
claims.  Nor would the court refuse to
award fees because Certified got Avicenna to stop making patent-related claims,
in that Avicenna’s misrepresentation of its product as “patented” happened only
twice, and Avicenna corrected both instances prior to Certified filing its
lawsuit.
Objective reasonableness of litigation: the sanctions order
provided the court’s basis for finding that litigation was conducted in an
objectively unreasonable manner. Moreover, Certified’s decision to file a
similar case in the district while the present case was pending additionally
demonstrated objective unreasonability; that case was voluntarily dismissed
after a motion to dismiss indicated that Certified didn’t own the second
patent.
Deterrence: Certified has a history of litigation, including
the lawsuit just mentioned (which targeted nearly a dozen competitors) and a
case in which  the California Court of
Appeal affirmed a sanctions award of $34,000 against Certified’s principal for
advancing frivolous arguments in a lawsuit against another competitor.
Certified also filed a second lawsuit alleging similar false advertising claims
against Avicenna, but had yet to serve Avicenna with the lawsuit.  The court found that this conduct was relevant
both for the Octane Fitness totality
of the circumstances test and for the deterrence factor. Also, Certified failed
to comply with the sanctions order by filing a notice that the sanctions were
paid within three days of payment, which had been part of the order.  “To say the least, Certified’s brazen
litigation tactics and utter disregard for this Court’s own order suggest a
lack of respect for the rule of law that should be deterred.”
Avicenna could only recover for fees related to its work on
the Lanham Act claim, not the two state law claims, but the claims here were “so
inextricably intertwined that even an estimated adjustment [for the state law
claims] would be meaningless.” They relied on the same factual allegations and
had many of the same elements.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2RQYHTr

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s